Most active commenters

    ←back to thread

    Define policy forbidding use of AI code generators

    (github.com)
    489 points todsacerdoti | 14 comments | 25 Jun 25 23:26 UTC | HN request time: 2.284s | source | bottom
    Show context
    Havoc ◴[25 Jun 25 23:41 UTC] No.44382839[source]▶
    I wonder whether the motivation is really legal? I get the sense that some projects are just sick of reviewing crap AI submissions
    replies(6): >>44382854 #>>44382954 #>>44383005 #>>44383017 #>>44383164 #>>44383177 #
    1. SchemaLoad ◴[25 Jun 25 23:44 UTC] No.44382854[source]▶
    This could honestly break open source, with how quickly you can generate bullshit, and how long it takes to review and reject it. I can imagine more projects going the way of Android where you can download the source, but realistically you can't contribute as a random outsider.
    replies(5): >>44382866 #>>44382874 #>>44383174 #>>44383418 #>>44385273 #
    2. api ◴[25 Jun 25 23:48 UTC] No.44382866[source]▶
    Quality contributions to OSS are rare unless the project is huge.
    replies(1): >>44382922 #
    3. hollerith ◴[25 Jun 25 23:49 UTC] No.44382874[source]▶
    I've always thought that the possibility of forking the project is the main benefit to open-source licensing, and we know Android can be forked.
    replies(1): >>44382997 #
    4. loeg ◴[25 Jun 25 23:54 UTC] No.44382922[source]▶
    Historically the opposite of quality contributions has been no contributions, not net-negative contributions (random slop that costs more in review than it provides benefit).
    replies(2): >>44383133 #>>44387502 #
    5. ants_everywhere ◴[26 Jun 25 00:05 UTC] No.44382997[source]▶
    the primary benefit of open source is freedom
    replies(1): >>44383055 #
    6. javawizard ◴[26 Jun 25 00:18 UTC] No.44383055{3}[source]▶
    This is so tautological that I can't really tell what point you're trying to make.
    replies(1): >>44383139 #
    7. lmm ◴[26 Jun 25 00:34 UTC] No.44383133{3}[source]▶
    No it hasn't? Net-negative contributions to open source have been extremely common for years, it's not like you need an LLM to make them.
    replies(1): >>44383393 #
    8. ants_everywhere ◴[26 Jun 25 00:36 UTC] No.44383139{4}[source]▶
    how can it possibly be tautological? The comment just above me said something entirely different: that the primary benefit of open source is forking
    9. b00ty4breakfast ◴[26 Jun 25 00:43 UTC] No.44383174[source]▶
    I have an online acquaintance that maintains a very small and not widely used open-source project and the amount of (what we assume to be) automated AI submissions* they have to wade through is kinda wild given the very small number of contributors and users the thing has. It's gotta be clogging up these big projects like a DDoS attack.

    *"Automated" as in bots and "AI submissions" as in ai-generated code

    replies(1): >>44387317 #
    10. loeg ◴[26 Jun 25 01:23 UTC] No.44383393{4}[source]▶
    I guess we've had very different experiences!
    11. zahlman ◴[26 Jun 25 01:28 UTC] No.44383418[source]▶
    For many projects you realistically can't contribute as a random outsider anyway, simply because of the effort involved in grokking enough of the existing architecture to figure out where to make changes.
    12. graemep ◴[26 Jun 25 08:11 UTC] No.44385273[source]▶
    I think it is yet another reason (potentially malicious contributors are another) that open source projects are going to have to verify contributors.
    13. guappa ◴[26 Jun 25 13:41 UTC] No.44387317[source]▶
    I find that by being on codeberg instead of github i tune out a lot of the noise.
    14. LtWorf ◴[26 Jun 25 13:58 UTC] No.44387502{3}[source]▶
    Nah. I've had a lot of bad contributions. One PR deleted and readded all of the lines in the project, and the entire test suite was failing.

    The person got upset at me for saying I could not accept such a thing.

    There's other examples.